To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[TyroneSlothrop]

Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris

LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...

 

[IanC]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source

I agree with much of what you say. unfortunately you say things in a very poor fashion that is unscientific.

climate sensitivity is going down. but to say 'lower than 0.476C/doubling' is nonsense. even if you were quoting a recent paper, they would have given a number and an error range. the way you have presented it makes it sound like it is known to two significant digits and we are fighting over the third.

you did not specify whether you are talking about transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity. itt makes a difference as the transient response is generally lower than at equilibrium.

here is a graph of climate sensitivity estimates from mainstream sources. there are certainly other sources with lower (and higher) figures but they are not given the same credibility without established peer review and publishing.


as far as models being off by 300%, that is likewise an awkward statement that implies more certainty than is known (at least you didnt say 308%). did you notice that Christy said, "a factor of three".

dont claim exaggerated precision that can easily be disproved.......the other side already does more than enough of it. and that is why their CO2 theory is falling apart, even laymen can sense when they are being fibbed to.

 

[SSDD]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source

When they get to zero they will finally be on the right track and then the real work on what drives the climate can begin....and maybe we can get to work on some of the real environmental problems that we face.

 

[SSDD]

Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris

LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...

And I can get you a real good deal on some beach front property in Vail, Colorado. Here is what your high priest James Hansen had to say on the topic...from the guardian,

Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

 

[SSDD]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source

I agree with much of what you say. unfortunately you say things in a very poor fashion that is unscientific.

climate sensitivity is going down. but to say 'lower than 0.476C/doubling' is nonsense. even if you were quoting a recent paper, they would have given a number and an error range. the way you have presented it makes it sound like it is known to two significant digits and we are fighting over the third.

you did not specify whether you are talking about transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity. itt makes a difference as the transient response is generally lower than at equilibrium.

here is a graph of climate sensitivity estimates from mainstream sources. there are certainly other sources with lower (and higher) figures but they are not given the same credibility without established peer review and publishing.


as far as models being off by 300%, that is likewise an awkward statement that implies more certainty than is known (at least you didnt say 308%). did you notice that Christy said, "a factor of three".

dont claim exaggerated precision that can easily be disproved.......the other side already does more than enough of it. and that is why their CO2 theory is falling apart, even laymen can sense when they are being fibbed to.

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero....or less. The sooner that is understood, the sooner the real work on learning about what drives the climate can get started...and perhaps we can get to some of the real environmental problems we face.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature

You rely on Lord Monckton and company ..LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature

You rely on Lord Monckton and company ..LOL

Never even heard of him.

I've been reading your junk science since Scarfetta and West decide that the Sun was only 30% responsible for Earth's global warming.

You're a classic example of it: 190 countries!!! Consensus!!! all you need are the pom poms

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature

You rely on Lord Monckton and company ..LOL

Never even heard of him.

I've been reading your junk science since Scarfetta and West decide that the Sun was only 30% responsible for Earth's global warming.

You're a classic example of it: 190 countries!!! Consensus!!! all you need are the pom poms

Heartland Institute only honest scientist on the planet waaahahahhahahha

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are groupies, they don't read their own literature instead they rely on the assurance of large numbers: 97%, 190 countries. By themselves the numbers are meaningless and in fact outright fraudulent, but it gives our progressive groupies the assurance that's vital to maintain their stupid and docile nature

You rely on Lord Monckton and company ..LOL

Never even heard of him.

I've been reading your junk science since Scarfetta and West decide that the Sun was only 30% responsible for Earth's global warming.

You're a classic example of it: 190 countries!!! Consensus!!! all you need are the pom poms

Heartland Institute only honest scientist on the planet waaahahahhahahha

You have Consensus, the science is settled!

 

[IanC]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source

I agree with much of what you say. unfortunately you say things in a very poor fashion that is unscientific.

climate sensitivity is going down. but to say 'lower than 0.476C/doubling' is nonsense. even if you were quoting a recent paper, they would have given a number and an error range. the way you have presented it makes it sound like it is known to two significant digits and we are fighting over the third.

you did not specify whether you are talking about transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity. itt makes a difference as the transient response is generally lower than at equilibrium.

here is a graph of climate sensitivity estimates from mainstream sources. there are certainly other sources with lower (and higher) figures but they are not given the same credibility without established peer review and publishing.


as far as models being off by 300%, that is likewise an awkward statement that implies more certainty than is known (at least you didnt say 308%). did you notice that Christy said, "a factor of three".

dont claim exaggerated precision that can easily be disproved.......the other side already does more than enough of it. and that is why their CO2 theory is falling apart, even laymen can sense when they are being fibbed to.

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero....or less. The sooner that is understood, the sooner the real work on learning about what drives the climate can get started...and perhaps we can get to some of the real environmental problems we face.

you keep saying that, but you refuse to explain yourself. probably because every time you try it turns out horribly wrong, with glaring logical fallacies, and deference to old authorities rather than new ones. you are just as bad as crick and his ilk except that you and your crazy ideas dont take money out of my pocket.

 

[SSDD]

you keep saying that, but you refuse to explain yourself. probably because every time you try it turns out horribly wrong, with glaring logical fallacies, and deference to old authorities rather than new ones. you are just as bad as crick and his ilk except that you and your crazy ideas dont take money out of my pocket.

What do I need to explain Ian...reality....observation is my explanation. You claim that CO2 does a thing...and the more CO2 there is, the more of the thing it will do. Out here in the real world, CO2 is steadily increasing but it isn't doing the thing you, and your mathematical models predicted....the explanation is that you and your mathematical models are wrong...CO2 doesn't drive temperatures...the climate isn't sensitive to it. You claim I am wrong at the same time the climate is ignoring your models and doing what I predicted and all those like me who don't think that CO2 can cause warming.

The onus to prove anything isn't on me Ian...that responsibility lies squarely on your shoulders. As a skeptic, the only thing I need do is to observe that reality doesn't match with you and your mathematical models and ask why? You have no explanation....you only keep repeating what should be happening but isn't. Exactly where, in the scientific method does that behavior fit in?

 

[Billy_Bob]

hmmm......I have pissed off some on the far spectrum of skepticism by claiming the greenhouse effect is real, just not as described by CAGW. you are just as crazy as SSDD but are simply at the other end of the spectrum.

that climate sensitivity just keeps going down down down.....won't be long before it is zero or less and then some actual science can begin to find out what factors really matter to the climate....

Current CS levels are less than 0.476 deg C per doubling. It has been revised down so many times I have lost count and it now is less than 1 deg C. Far less than the expect LOG function found in controlled lab experiments, indicating that water vapor is indeed a negative forcing not a positive one and why all modeling today fails by a factor of 300%. This number increases every day as the divergence from reality becomes greater and greater as time progresses.

“Being off by a factor of three does not qualify in my book as settled science,” Christy said.

Source

I agree with much of what you say. unfortunately you say things in a very poor fashion that is unscientific.

climate sensitivity is going down. but to say 'lower than 0.476C/doubling' is nonsense. even if you were quoting a recent paper, they would have given a number and an error range. the way you have presented it makes it sound like it is known to two significant digits and we are fighting over the third.

you did not specify whether you are talking about transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity. itt makes a difference as the transient response is generally lower than at equilibrium.

here is a graph of climate sensitivity estimates from mainstream sources. there are certainly other sources with lower (and higher) figures but they are not given the same credibility without established peer review and publishing.


as far as models being off by 300%, that is likewise an awkward statement that implies more certainty than is known (at least you didnt say 308%). did you notice that Christy said, "a factor of three".

dont claim exaggerated precision that can easily be disproved.......the other side already does more than enough of it. and that is why their CO2 theory is falling apart, even laymen can sense when they are being fibbed to.

3 times...implies 300% or 3.

 

[mamooth]

Of course, Christy and Spencer have faked the temperature data, so everything SSDD is spouting here is a fraud.

The weather balloons (radiosondes) measure the same part of the troposphere as the satellites do. The weather balloons give a very different result, and show the same strong warming that the surface measurements show.

Weather balloons measure temperature directly. With a thermometer.

Satellites measure microwaves, then try to convert that to a temperature, correcting for observation angle, sun angle, clouds, dust, humidity, satellite orbital drift, sensor drift ... and then they run it through an atmospheric model as well.

So, there's a choice. Use the directly measured data (weather balloon temperatures), or use the output of a historically unreliable and extremely complex model (satellite temperatures). Deniers exclusively choose the bad models over the good simple measurements, demonstrating another trait that positively classifies them as pseudoscience devotees. Real scientists don't deliberately toss out the best data, while deniers specialize in that.

 

[SSDD]

The weather balloons (radiosondes) measure the same part of the troposphere as the satellites do. The weather balloons give a very different result, and show the same strong warming that the surface measurements show.

My my my but you are quite the lying idiot aren't you? Have you bothered to look at the radiosonde data next to the satellite data? Of course you haven't...or perhaps you have and just can't lying about what you saw. Here, have another look.

Weather balloons measure temperature directly. With a thermometer.

Yep...they sure do....and look at how closely the measurements follow the satellites....especially since about 2002....seems that the satellite record is correct while the surface record has been tampered beyond recognition...

Satellites measure microwaves, then try to convert that to a temperature, correcting for observation angle, sun angle, clouds, dust, humidity, satellite orbital drift, sensor drift ... and then they run it through an atmospheric model as well.

And again, look at how closely they track the radiosonde (actual measurement) data....especially, as I said since about 2002. Far more accurate than the surface record.

So, there's a choice. Use the directly measured data (weather balloon temperatures), or use the output of a historically unreliable and extremely complex model (satellite temperatures). Deniers exclusively choose the bad models over the good simple measurements, demonstrating another trait that positively classifies them as pseudoscience devotees. Real scientists don't deliberately toss out the best data, while deniers specialize in that.

When the satellite data and radiosonde data are so close, why does one need to choose. It is the climate models that are the epic failure...

 

[tinydancer]

Does anyone get it

What happend between the ice ages?

 

[Crick]

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.

 

[SSDD]

Spencer and Christy's graph is crap which is why deniers love it and use it over and over and over again.

You are saying that the radiosonde and satellite data sets are not accurate in that graph? Or are you saying that you don't like graphs because you just can't make sense of them? Or do you just not like to see actual observation compared to the GCM's upon which your faith in AGW is based?

 

[mamooth]

My my my but you are quite the lying idiot aren't you? Have you bothered to look at the radiosonde data next to the satellite data?

Of course I have. Unlike you, I look at real data instead of fraud blogs. You and Spencer are lying about it. The radiosonde/weather balloon temperatures disagree with the satellite model temperatures, and agree very closely with the surface station data and the climate models.

Of course you haven't...or perhaps you have and just can't lying about what you saw. Here, have another look.

That's just mystery dots on a page. No sources, no references to where the balloon data came from. Unlike Spencer, I'll give the exact source of where to get the weather balloon temperature data.

Radiosonde Atmospheric Temperature Products for Accessing Climate (RATPAC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

The link to the data is right there, the data in text format. Anyone can download it. It's the 85 stations of the global RATPAC network, specifically designed to have global coverage, and to use consistently calibrated instruments. There have been thousands of other balloon launching sites in the past, but they've had major problems concerning no consistency among instruments and calibration. I'm guessing Spencer must have searched among those thousands of sites and cherrypicked madly until he found something to match his other fudging.

Yep...they sure do....and look at how closely the measurements follow the satellites....especially since about 2002....seems that the satellite record is correct

The balloon temperatures diverge wildly from the satellite model output temperatures. Not a surprise, since the convoluted satellite model has such a history of sucking, while the balloon and surface station temperatures are direct, simple and consistent. Only deniers still cling to those failed satellite models, because all of the good data says deniers are completely wrong.

while the surface record has been tampered beyond recognition...

The total modifications to the surface record have made the warming look _smaller_. If scientists did no corrections at all, the warming would look bigger. Your conspiracy theory is flatly contradicted by reality.

And again, look at how closely they track the radiosonde (actual measurement) data....especially, as I said since about 2002. Far more accurate than the surface record.

Let's look at the actual data, as opposed to Spencer's mystery dots. Tamino here did the plotting for us.

Ted Cruz: Just Plain Wrong

As the graphs show, the satellites started diverging from the balloons around 2000, and the divergence has now grown to the point where the output of the satellite models is ridiculously low. There's clearly a significant drift issue with the satellites.

That can't happen with the surface measurements and balloons, of course, since those come from thousands of independent instruments. If one instrument drifts off, cross-checking with other instruments reveals the problem. As the satellite measurements come from just one or two instruments with nothing good to cross check too, drift is a serious problem. That's why nobody of any intelligence trusts the satellite data over the good data.

When the satellite data and radiosonde data are so close, why does one need to choose. It is the climate models that are the epic failure...

In summary, the weather balloon temperature trends and surface temperature trends agree very closely with each other, and with the climate models, demonstrating how good the models have been. The satellite model temperature trend disagrees with everything, demonstrating how bad that model output is.

SSDD, you've got a choice to make now. Previous to this post, you could have used ignorance as your excuse as to why you pushed Spencer's fraud. You can't use that excuse any more. Will you still back the fraud now, thus announcing to everyone that you're actively and deliberately endorsing the fraud?

 

[jc456]

Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris

LE BOURGET, France - With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave ...

so what is the plan?